![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.brasstackthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/marbles-300x199.jpg\" "\\"marbles\\"")
We\u2019re a little too focused on collecting humans like marbles.<\/p>\nWe\u2019re a little too focused on collecting humans like marbles.<\/p>\n
Our fans. Followers. Subscribers. Impressions.<\/p>\n
Once upon a time, numbers like gross circulation mattered a bit more, because the available channels and paths for information were somewhat limited. So by putting yourself visibly in one of them, chances were pretty good that you\u2019d actually be seen, and command a fair bit of someone\u2019s attention, at least for a few moments.<\/p>\n
Now? Not nearly. Clicking \u201cfollow\u201d or \u201clike\u201d is a fleeting, non-commital moment. And just as easily, that attention is off and elsewhere. (How many pages have you liked \u2013 whether sincere or just out of support for a friend \u2013 and never revisited?). It\u2019s the equivalent of someone picking up the flyer and tossing it in the next trash can. Veneered attention is so easy to give out, because it doesn\u2019t take our time, our effort, or even our brainpower. We simply need to click. And move on.<\/p>\n
Is that really the only way you want to define success?<\/p>\n
What That Number Does Tell You<\/strong><\/p>\n What the larger network size represents \u2013 has always represented \u2013 is potential<\/em>.<\/p>\n The number of your fans, followers, blog subscribers \u2013 they only ever represent the possible scope of your network<\/em>. And it\u2019s likely an inflated one at that.<\/p>\n Not all of those people are paying attention at any given time, certainly not in today\u2019s firehose of information. An even smaller portion of those paying attention in that moment are actually in the right frame of mind to hear what you\u2019re talking about, posting, or offering. And then again, a smaller percentage of those attentive and interested will actually act<\/em>.<\/p>\n The balance for you is that of course, you want the greatest possible potential. So sure, building a broad network with large reach can be a good thing. But in order for that potential to pay off somehow, you want to expend the effort growing both the size of your audience as well as the density of its overall relevance<\/em> to your work.<\/p>\n This is really what we\u2019re saying when we refer to quality over quantity. Having 500 engaged and interested community member versus 50,000 ambivalent ones. Size only matters if there\u2019s substance beneath.<\/p>\n Patience, Padawan<\/strong><\/p>\n Building that powerful network, though \u2013 the one with both reach and relevance \u2013 takes relentless work and patience. It requires:<\/p>\n None of these are instant. They require time and effort. Sometimes you have to adjust them based on what you learn, or how your business changes. But over time, they together return a more sustainable network fabric.<\/p>\n The second one is the hardest for most businesses; we\u2019ve always done the \u201ccast the net wide and hope to catch a few good fish\u201d approach. It\u2019s just far less efficient today than it once was. Why? Simple laws of supply and demand. The supply of information, opportunity, and people and businesses vying for our attention FAR, FAR outweighs the demand for it. And the minute we give our attention, we\u2019re distracted by a zillion other things.<\/p>\n But there\u2019s still a demand market based on personalized experiences, experiences with companies that feel like they\u2019re well-tailored to our needs as customers, and backed up without outstanding service and delivery. So getting attention is harder, and keeping it is harder still. The only answer for the latter is delivering great business, relentlessly, and in response to – and in anticipation of \u2013 what your customers tell you they need. (Remember, though, that the quality of that experiences is determined by the customers, not how awesome you think you are.)<\/p>\n Making the Case For Relevant Reach<\/strong><\/p>\n Fishing with a net seems like the easier approach. And it can be tempting to just gather, gather, gather. Counting our marbles, celebrating how many we have, amassing some numbers that look impressive on a spreadsheet. And stopping there.<\/p>\n But when you want to show your results, is it more impressive to see: or<\/p>\n 7,500 Twitter Followers and 20% of them took a qualified action<\/em><\/p>\n If I\u2019m the boss, the second set of numbers is much more telling to me. The net result is the same on the surface \u2013 1,500 people did something \u2013 but the second is a greater activated proportion of our audience. That ratio represents focus, efficiency, and impact. Those things matter.<\/p>\n So what we want isn\u2019t just reach, but relevant reach<\/strong>.<\/p>\n If your total number of fans, followers, or subscribers is the potential, when the ratio goes up, the larger network yields even better results. Not only are they more likely to do, say, or create something that\u2019s valuable to you, it gives you a richer base upon which to build communications and invest in those people in return. The reach may be part of the means, but it is not remotely the end.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a different way of thinking. But then again, we\u2019re in the midst of a different way of doing a lot of things.<\/p>\n I think we focus much too heavily on collecting superficial demonstrations of attention, and not nearly enough on the composition of the communities we build.<\/p>\n What do you think?<\/p>\n Amber Naslund<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We\u2019re a little too focused on collecting humans like marbles. Our fans. Followers. Subscribers. Impressions. Once upon a time, numbers like gross circulation mattered a bit more, because the available channels and paths for information were somewhat limited. So by putting yourself visibly in one of them, chances were pretty good that you\u2019d actually be … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[137,55],"tags":[715,712,713,716,178],"class_list":["post-1345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-posts","category-ambernaslund","tag-define","tag-reach","tag-relevance","tag-relevant-reach","tag-success"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1345"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1351,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1345\/revisions\/1351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thesocialcmo.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\n50,000 Facebook Fans and 3% of them took a qualified action (opted into a newsletter, purchased something, wrote a positive review\u2026something more than just clicking a link)<\/em><\/p>\n